Aries, I want you to think long and hard about what you said. You want to ban the least used weapon in firearm crimes so you can stop "some" of the deaths with "some" being the minority of such.

At the same time you said handguns were one of the best firearms for home defense. Handguns are also the most easily concealed and most used firearm in firearm related deaths but you aren't wanting to ban those.

So don't you think your desire to ban "assault" weapons is nothing more than symbolic at best as well as largely ineffective?

I would rather defend myself with words than with anything else. When a person is incapable defending their point in an intelligent manner and instead falls back on baser, more elementary school, tactics like name calling and questioning another's manhood... they have already lost the debate and are only grandstanding for any audience that might lend their argument credence.

I say this both as a person who has borne great pains to learn English and speak it far better than the average American... as well as a person who has worn the uniform, believes wholly in the 2nd, and can be called a great many things but never a coward.

you ever read this place or listen to political radio
that is the first place everybody goes

not saying they are ID10Ts but................................................................................................. .................................................................................................... ..............................

Aries, I want you to think long and hard about what you said. You want to ban the least used weapon in firearm crimes so you can stop "some" of the deaths with "some" being the minority of such.

At the same time you said handguns were one of the best firearms for home defense. Handguns are also the most easily concealed and most used firearm in firearm related deaths but you aren't wanting to ban those.

So don't you think your desire to ban "assault" weapons is nothing more than symbolic at best as well as largely ineffective?

I had a slow day at work today. I had plenty of time to think long and hard about this, and I have the jotted-on Post-Its in my trash can to prove it.

First of all, I said handguns were better for home defense than assault weapons. That's not the same as me saying that they were "one of the best". A small but important difference.

To the main point, Congress and the American people would never stand for a handgun (or even just a semi-automatic handgun) ban. You know that, I know that, everyone here knows that. Therefore, in order to reduce the amount of killings with handguns, we have to use other methods - increased penalties for use of a firearm in a crime, closing that no-background-check gun-show loophole, funding buyback programs, limiting magazine sizes, and actually prosecuting the people who deserve it are all good steps. They're kind of outside the scope of this thread.

But because we can't ban the handguns that do all of that damage, we take what we can. As I said (#2 in my earlier post), an assault weapons ban might pass. A statue that might pass, but would do less, is better than one with no chance, that would theoretically do more. Something is better than nothing.

I had a slow day at work today. I had plenty of time to think long and hard about this, and I have the jotted-on Post-Its in my trash can to prove it.

First of all, I said handguns were better for home defense than assault weapons. That's not the same as me saying that they were "one of the best". A small but important difference.

To the main point, Congress and the American people would never stand for a handgun (or even just a semi-automatic handgun) ban. You know that, I know that, everyone here knows that. Therefore, in order to reduce the amount of killings with handguns, we have to use other methods - increased penalties for use of a firearm in a crime, closing that no-background-check gun-show loophole, funding buyback programs, limiting magazine sizes, and actually prosecuting the people who deserve it are all good steps. They're kind of outside the scope of this thread.

But because we can't ban the handguns that do all of that damage, we take what we can. As I said (#2 in my earlier post), an assault weapons ban might pass. A statue that might pass, but would do less, is better than one with no chance, that would theoretically do more. Something is better than nothing.

So, no, I don't think that it's only symbolic or largely ineffective.

Ok, so what makes a weapon an "assault weapon" and why is that different than say my Mini-14 Ranch Rifle?

I had a slow day at work today. I had plenty of time to think long and hard about this, and I have the jotted-on Post-Its in my trash can to prove it.

First of all, I said handguns were better for home defense than assault weapons. That's not the same as me saying that they were "one of the best". A small but important difference.

To the main point, Congress and the American people would never stand for a handgun (or even just a semi-automatic handgun) ban. You know that, I know that, everyone here knows that. Therefore, in order to reduce the amount of killings with handguns, we have to use other methods - increased penalties for use of a firearm in a crime, closing that no-background-check gun-show loophole, funding buyback programs, limiting magazine sizes, and actually prosecuting the people who deserve it are all good steps. They're kind of outside the scope of this thread.

But because we can't ban the handguns that do all of that damage, we take what we can. As I said (#2 in my earlier post), an assault weapons ban might pass. A statue that might pass, but would do less, is better than one with no chance, that would theoretically do more. Something is better than nothing.

So, no, I don't think that it's only symbolic or largely ineffective.

You think a hand gun is a better home defense weapon than a shoulder fired rifle?

you ever read this place or listen to political radio
that is the first place everybody goes

not saying they are ID10Ts but................................................................................................. .................................................................................................... ..............................

Its funny people give me shit for starting like maybe 5 threads on religious stuff, but you gun dildos have ****ing gone totally insane. Lost your collective minds, but by all means carry on.

Gubermunt cuming for u'se guns! Fear run!!!

perhaps it is because your religious threads aren't about a subject that is a very intense point of contention in our country at the moment? dunno... i don't care if you post a hundred threads in here.

When I spoke earlier about people being incapable of reasonable discourse because they insist upon degrading the conversation to insults and mockery... thanks for proving the point.

I 100% support the ban on any more crybaby gun threads for the rest of eternity.

Perhaps you should get an assault rifle and then go shoot the priest that ****ed you up the ass all those years ago. Perhaps then you could come to grips with all your issues at once and not be such an annoying douche all the time.

1. Of course a ban on assault weapons won't bring all gun-related violence to a screeching halt. Death-by-rifle makes up a pretty tiny part of the whole death-by-firearm spectrum, so it wouldn't prevent all of the killings - but it will prevent some, and everything starts with a 'some'. some, hmm as in "some" men are created with inalienable rights, or maybe only "some" people should be allowed to assemble. You see this starts a slippery slope, I know that banning men from being gay won't prevent all child molestations, but if it stops "some" then maybe it's a good start. After all, everything starts with a "some"

2. Because it might pass. A proposal to ban handguns - far and away the death-dealingest kind of firearm - would never even get through committee. This, might. That's politics.

So we should create nonsensical legislation because it might pass. Knowing full well that it will not accomplish anything and instead will restrict the freedoms of millions of law-abiding citizens? Hmmm, now maybe we could end gang violence if we could just "ban" poor black youths, however that will never even get through committee. So instead let's ban poor blacks from playing basketball.

3. Because you don't need 'em. They're not needed to hunt or to target shoot - people hear have been very happy to demonstrate versions of the exact same rifles which would be 100% totally OK for use on the range or in the hunting grounds. They're not needed for home defense; shotguns and handguns are better for that.

One could argue that an assault weapon is needed to resist a potentially tyrannical government. However, a fully automatic M-60 or a shoulder-mounted surface-to-air missile would do the same, and yet those are very regulated. There has to be a line somewhere, and when weapons become more pervasive and more deadly, there has to be a time when we decide as a country that they shouldn't be widely dispersed. There is precedent for this, namely when fully automatic weapons became available; at some point, the government decided to restrict them. Same thing.

I should point out one more thing: collectors. Collectors don't need their weapons, they want them. Besides the fact that they could still get a Class III License and have them just fine, a want also has to take a back seat to a societal need.

You don't need religion either, so that's gone. You don't need a vehicle, so that's gone. You don't need a tv, so that's gone. You don't need a house, so that's gone. You don't need to fly in a plane, so that's gone. You don't need a newspaper, so that's gone. You don't need internet, so that's gone. You don't need to eat in a restaurant, so that's gone. You don't need to have abortions, so that's gone.

I won't even begin to explain the advantages that an semi-auto rifle can offer for self-defense or hunting purposes, they are well documented and you wouldn't care anyways.
I won't even address the societal need clause of your argument, that is the most retarded shit I've ever heard. You want to save the world from itself go plant a tree, or join the peace corps or some other feel good humanitary bullshit. How well did gun control work out for the jewish "societal needs" in Germany, how about the millions of others that have been killed by their governments.

4. Assault rifles are able to accept much larger magazines than pistols, meaning that spree shooters can fire continuously for a longer time without reloading. James Holmes had a 100-round drum (which fortunately jammed) attached to his AR-15. This gets in to the whole "magazine size" debate, which I think is for a different thread.

the average magazine for a semi-automatic rifle is either 20-30 rounds, yes there are some that hold more. Any 9mm Glock is capable of using a 33 round magazine, more rounds can be held by using various grip extensions. A FN 5.7 handgun holds 20 rounds of 5.7mm ammunition, an extremely effective pistol round. It takes an experienced shooter less than a second to exchange mags, a novice shooter can do it in about 2 seconds, someone that has no experience can do it in less than 5 seconds. The size of a magazine has absolutely no effect on crimes.
We should be thankful the theater shooter had a knock-off beta mag, a real magazine won't jam.

5. Okay, yeah, I'll say it: they're scary. As in yes, they scare people, and violent shooters know it. There aren't many other reasons that, say, Adam Lanza would have used the AR-15 as his primary weapon over the two handguns he had on him. If he were strictly number crunching, he probably would have gone with the handguns, as the rifle's increased range and muzzle velocity aren't needed in an elementary school. He didn't because he wasn't thinking, and in the midst of his mental crisis (which most spree shooters have), he went with the scary one.

Yeah, sure, maybe if his idiot mother didn't have the AR-15, he would have just used the shotgun, but maybe he wouldn't have. We obviously have no way of knowing. We do, however, have to do something - along with drastically increasing our national outlook on mental health, and maybe have our berserk media give it a f***ing rest for a generation or two - and the cases and statistics I've read, along with my conscience and common sense, tell me that the assault weapons ban is one of the sensible gun control choices we can make these days.

If by sensible and common sense, you mean absolutely ineffective, meaningless, and completely illogical then sure, we can "ban" semi-automatic rifles so that you feel better. I feel that one problem in this country is poor people, now I understand we can't just execute poor people, however I think it's common sense and sensible to restrict the ability of poor people to have a job, therefore ensuring that the available jobs are there for non-poor people. So therefore we should pass legislation that "bans" poor people from being employed. I also feel that if we "ban" poor people from having housing that will allow there to be more housing available for non-poor people. These make about as much sense as your "sensible" legislation ideas.Posted via Mobile Device

But because we can't ban the handguns that do all of that damage, we take what we can. As I said (#2 in my earlier post), an assault weapons ban might pass. A statue that might pass, but would do less, is better than one with no chance, that would theoretically do more. Something is better than nothing.

So, no, I don't think that it's only symbolic or largely ineffective.

There you go. You thought long and hard and you came up with the slogan of these legislators. "We Take What We Can." Even when we know that what we are doing won't solve any problems, We Take What We Can. Even as day-to-day hand gun violence rages through the streets of Chicago, We Take What We Can. Even as (or because) people are still emotionally raw from an unusually rare tragedy, We Take What We Can. This is the kind of thinking that gives birth to the goofy "Ban Hammers" and "Ban Cars" internet memes. Because when legislators use that as their rallying cry, We Take What We Can, we know how much they can take, and we know that they are doing nothing to solve the problem. They will just continue taking whatever we allow them to take. It won't stop because they'll never solve it this way. War on poverty. War on drugs. War on terror. War on guns. No thanks. I'm not willing to go yet another round of pretending that we are on a war footing because our delinquent politicians can't solve any problems or actually get anything done.

__________________

Oh, thou clear spirit, of thy fire thou madest me, and like a true child of fire, I breathe it back to thee.